Thanks, Christian! I suspected as much. Import/export may help with doing
this, but we'll discuss internally to see how we want to proceed. Worse
case, we'll just run and maintain multiple instances.
Thanks again!
~Rob
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:07 PM Christian Hammond
wrote:
> Hi
Hi All,
Has anyone tried to merge two reviewboard servers together? We've recently
acquired a new one, and are looking for ways to combine them into a single
server, if possible.
I'm assuming it's not (or if it is, it's very extremely complex) but just
thought I'd ask first.
~Rob
results. I'm having to activate the user before getting the
request and deactivating them after.
Is this a known issue?
Thanks,
~Rob
--
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
https
Thanks, André
We had the user rename the branch instead and that seemed to work. Your fix
looks fine (though I'm also not able to test it) so hopefully the devs will
put it into a release in the future.
~Rob
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 3:59 AM André Klitzing wrote:
> Hi,
>
> seems yo
"/opt/venv/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/reviewboard/scmtools/core.py",
line 1163, in get_file_
http
raise SCMError(msg)
I'm guessing it's having difficulty handling the branch name "X-12371 &
X-10577"? Other branches don't seem to have this issue
return cb(normpath, normrev)
If this makes sense, should I open a review with my proposed changes?
On Thursday, 22 August 2019 13:34:16 UTC-6, Rob Petti wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> We're having an issue with one of our SVN repositories right now. It
> appears almost a
e filename from '#'
and erroneously trying to use that to locate the file in the repository.
Would anyone know how to overcome this problem? Obviously we could work
around it by changing the file names, but this is a naming convention
that's required by our product and cannot be changed.
Th
subversion to the
version provided by the distribution, recompiled pysvn, and everything
appears to be working fine now!
Thanks for the help! Telling me that it was an error directly from libsvn
was enough to set me on the right track. :)
~Rob
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Rob Petti <rob.pe...@gma
ay end up having to recompile the whole stack.
On Wednesday, 31 January 2018 20:08:03 UTC-7, Christian Hammond wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Let's make sure it doesn't have to do with file-based lookups. We may need
> to run some tests. First, can you generate a diff with `rbt diff`, and th
self.main(*args) or 0
File "C:\Program Files
(x86)\RBTools\Python27\lib\site-packages\rbtools-0.7.10-py2.7.egg\rbtools\commands\post.py",
line 812, in main
(msg_prefix, e))
rbtools.commands.CommandError: Error validating diff
Unrecognized URL scheme for
'http://10.XX.XX.XX:89/sv
Ok great, thanks!
Sent from my iPhone
> On 29 Nov 2017, at 20:49, Christian Hammond <christ...@beanbaginc.com> wrote:
>
> The fix will be included in 2.5.17 and 3.0.1. I expect we’ll get 2.5.17 out
> in about a week.
>
> Christian
>
>
>> On Wed, Nov 2
Hi Christian,
Thanks for the quick reply.
Would it be possible to let me know when this change (back) has been made
please? Or should I keep an eye out for the change on future releases?
Thanks
Rob
On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 09:41:24 UTC, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We ar
is changed and is there a reason for the change?
Thanks
Rob
--
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons:
https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/
---
Yo
ue, but it was non-obvious last time.
>
> What I did find was resizing the window would trigger a relayout,
> resolving the problem. I’d be curious if this works around the issue for
> you.
>
> Christian
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 16:24 Rob Petti <ro
That's odd... Here's the attachment again.
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Christian Hammond <christ...@beanbaginc.com
> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Unfortunately that screenshot didn’t go through for me. Looks like it’s
> some inline thing instead of an attachment. Can yo
Hi all,
One of my users is having a strange issue with the diff viewer in
ReviewBoard 2.5.16. When long lines wrap, part of the text near the edge of
the view gets cut off.
They claim it happens in Chrome 62 and Firefox 57, but I was only able to
reproduce the problem in IE 11.
Any ideas on
I just ran into this as well... Thankfully, I managed to fix it by updating
to the latest setuptools using pip:
pip install -U setuptools
~Rob
On Sunday, 29 October 2017 01:18:46 UTC-6, Gabriel Ganam wrote:
>
> Help :)
>
> I'm trying to upgrade from 2.5.7 to 2.5.16, and when I ran
?
Should the Search API and/or the "quick search" include review requests
marked as submitted?
If not, when was this changed and why?
Thanks
Rob
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 14:49:41 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Yep thanks, index looks to be running now.
> Hopefully it
Yep thanks, index looks to be running now.
Hopefully it will get to the end this time - if so I'll make the same
change on our live system.
Cheers
Rob
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 14:42:55 UTC+1, Erik Johansson wrote:
>
> I'm guessing the if statement should be "if no
'' does not
have a model_attr 'username'.
Thanks
Rob
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 10:02:54 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> That doesn't include the code I mentioned in my previous e-mail. Note the
> standalone 'hasattr' call on the line preceding t
lt
94 # Fall out of the loop, given any further
attempts at
95 # accesses will fail misreably.
Thanks
Rob
On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 06:28:49 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Can you show me all the code within about 5 lines of your modificatio
line 159, in
prepare
return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87, in
prepare
raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
'%s'." % (repr(current_object), attr))
hayst
exes.py", line 212, in
full_prepare
self.prepared_data = self.prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/indexes.py", line 203, in
prepare
self.prepared_data[field.index_fieldname] = field.prepare(obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields
Thanks Christian, is that something we’ll need to do directly to the database?
I don’t suppose you have any info on what needs to be done? Our DBA is on leave
at the mo.
No probs, not always easy to get to the bottom of these things!
Thanks
Rob
Sent from my iPhone
> On 16 Oct 2017, at 19
sor.execute(query, args)
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/cursors.py", line 205,
in execute
self.errorhandler(self, exc, value)
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/connections.py", line
36, in defaulterrorhandler
raise errorclass, errorvalue
urrent_object.__class__.__name__, inspect.getfile(obj.__class__), id(obj),
id(current_object), attr, hasattr(current_object, attr), has_attr))
haystack.exceptions.SearchFieldError: The model 'ReviewRequest' ('27393' --
reviewboard.reviews.models.review_request.ReviewRequest at
/usr/lib/python2.7/si
No probs - where do we go from here?
Thanks
Rob
On Thursday, 12 October 2017 19:58:13 UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> Ok, I just wanted to rule out an easy solution.
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:47 AM 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
> revie...@googlegroups.com > wrote
t__.pyc
>>> import haystack
>>> print haystack.__version__
(2, 4, 1)
>>> print haystack.__file__
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/__init__.pyc
Thanks
Rob
On Thursday, 12 October 2017 10:41:59 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> I've install
Hi Stephen,
I've installed that on our test system and re-run the index - unfortunately
the same problem.
Thanks
Rob
On Wednesday, 11 October 2017 19:21:22 UTC+1, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:40 AM 'Rob Backhurst' via reviewboard <
> revie..
b/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 161, in
prepare
return self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 86, in
prepare
print '%r (%s): %s' % (current_object, id(current_object),
hasattr(current
egerField):
pass
class FacetFloatField(FacetField, FloatField):
pass
class FacetDecimalField(FacetField, DecimalField):
pass
class FacetBooleanField(FacetField, BooleanField):
pass
class FacetDateField(FacetField, DateField):
pass
class FacetDateTimeField(FacetField, DateTimeF
eturn self.convert(super(CharField, self).prepare(obj))
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 88, in
prepare
raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' ('%s' -- %s) does not have a
model_attr '%s' (%s)." % (repr(obj), repr(current_object),
curre
/easy_install though so if you can
suggest any tricks to show for sure, that would be great.
Thanks
Rob
Sent from my iPhone
> On 6 Oct 2017, at 19:10, Stephen Gallagher <step...@gallagherhome.com> wrote:
>
> Rob, did you install ReviewBoard using pip or using the EPEL 7 RPM?
>
>
Hi Christian, I’ll send the file to you asap.
Thanks
Rob
Sent from my iPhone
> On 6 Oct 2017, at 18:31, Christian Hammond <christ...@beanbaginc.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> It was a couple e-mails ago, but can you actually just attach
> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-pac
Sorry, which one line?
On Friday, 6 October 2017 00:59:12 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> That's the version listed in the source code for the version of Haystack
> being run. Not sure if that indicates a packaging problem or what, but it's
> very strange.
>
Hi Christian,
We deinately only have version 2.3.1 installed.
python-django-haystack 2.3.1-1.el7
Why would it think we're using 2.1.1 dev? Can we force it to look in the
correct place?
Thanks
Rob
On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I
Perhaps we're able to add some kind of debugging to the indexing to provide
more info?
Thanks
Rob
On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I upgraded our ReviewBoard system from 2.5.10 to 2.5.16 - since then,
> indexing doesn't seem to comple
u'dev')
>>> print haystack.__file__
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/__init__.pyc
On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I upgraded our ReviewBoard system from 2.5.10 to 2.5.16 - since then,
> indexing doesn't seem to com
t;>> from reviewboard.reviews.models import ReviewRequest
>>> r = ReviewRequest.objects.get(pk=1)
>>> print hasattr(r, 'commit')
True
>>>
Cheers
Rob
On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I upgraded our Rev
Hi Christian,
Thanks for getting back to me.
Is this what you're after?
python-django-haystack.noarch
2.3.1-1.el7
Thanksl
Rob
On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I upgraded our ReviewBoard system
As this happens during the index, it is preventing us from having full
search results - any help would be much appreciated as this is causing
quite a few issues for our development team.
Please let me know if you need any more info.
Thanks
Rob
On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 09:12:26 UTC+1, Rob
CharField, self).prepare(obj))
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/haystack/fields.py", line 87, in
prepare
raise SearchFieldError("The model '%s' does not have a model_attr
'%s'." % (repr(obj), attr))
haystack.exceptions.SearchFieldError: The model '' does not have a model
a diff and attach to the form, it
results in an error.
-
Thanks
Rob
On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 09:25:05 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Since upgrading to RB 2.5.10 our developers have noticed they can not post
> a review without uploading a diff.
> Previou
ify the problematic dupes
(or other issue that might be causing the problem) ?
---
Thanks
Rob
On Friday, 26 May 2017 09:24:00 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We have recently upgraded our ReviewBoard from version 1.7.22 to 2.5.10 -
> as well as also upgrading from RHEL 6.x
Oh and yes, anyone can add comments so thats fine...
On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 09:10:01 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> Since we upgraded to RB 2.5.10 there has been a change in the way our
> developers can upload attachments.
>
>
> Attachments added by anyo
Hi Christian,
Thanks for the quick reply!
So the menu options for other users to upload files shouldn't be available?
Is this a bug?
We upgraded from 1.7.22 - perhaps also a bug in that version that allowed
users to do it?
Thanks
Rob
On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 09:15:16 UTC+1, Christian
Hi,
Since upgrading to RB 2.5.10 our developers have noticed they can not post
a review without uploading a diff.
Previously, using the web interface you were able to create a RB form
without a diff – Can we configure RB to allow this again?
Thanks
Rob
--
Supercharge your Review Board
and authority to publish draft forms. Is it
possible to relax this validation?
I believe previously “other” users were able to both comment and
additionally upload files.
Thanks
Rob
--
Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack:
https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Want us to host
Hi Christian,
Thanks for the quick response.
I'm not particularly comfortable with SQL but i'll ask a colleague if he
can help out - i'll let you know.
Thanks
Rob
On Friday, 26 May 2017 09:24:00 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We have recently upgraded our ReviewBoard
packages/MySQLdb/cursors.py", line 205, in
execute
self.errorhandler(self, exc, value)
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MySQLdb/connections.py", line 36, in
defaulterrorhandler
raise errorclass, errorvalue
IntegrityError: (1062, "Duplicate entry '1701871-1' for key
1, in
AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'scmtools'
>>> from reviewboard.scmtools.core import PRE_CREATION, UNKNOWN,
FileNotFoundError
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
ImportError: No module named scmtools.core
I'm going to start this again...wil
Did you have any other ideas about this one?
Thanks
Rob
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 10:03:40 UTC+1, Rob Backhurst wrote:
>
> Ahaa, that looks better...
>
> >>> print reviewboard.__file__
>
> /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/__
Ahaa, that looks better...
>>> print reviewboard.__file__
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ReviewBoard-2.5.4-py2.6.egg/reviewboard/__init__.pyc
Thanks
Rob
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 09:44:08 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Sorry, typo. Should have been reviewboard.__file__
print reviewboard.__file_
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute '__file_'
>>>
Obviously something not quite right with the installation..?
Thanks
Rob
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 05:53:10 UTC+1, Christian Hamm
Hi Christian,
Sorry for the slow reply.
It was installed using easy_install, then the DB restored from our live
reviewboard server.
There is no reviewboard dir when running the rb-site upgrade.
Thanks
Rob
On Friday, 13 May 2016 01:09:07 UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
&
; What version of Review Board? What version control system (and version
> thereof)? Is there anything in the server log?
>
> -David
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:43 AM Rob Dejournett <rdejo...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Sorry if this is a double post. Getti
265, in _api_get
raise Exception(e.read())
Exception: Not Found
On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 9:03:25 AM UTC-5, Rob Dejournett wrote:
>
> It's reviewboard 2.0.1, we are using Git version 1.9.5. I am not the
> review board administrator, but I have access to the linux box. If yo
I am doing some development which is tracked by XML files. It looks like
these XML files are breaking RBTools (java files post file).
I get a 105 error stating path is not found. Not really sure what this
means. But I strongly suspect its due to parsing of the diff.
Attached is said diff
Sorry if this is a double post. Getting error with some files posting
using RBTools. Java files seem to work fine. I use something called Mirth
Connect which generates XML files as code. Basically when RBT tries to
upload the diff it fails with the 105 error. Attached is the diff.
--
thoughts ?
Thanks in advance
Rob
--
Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
---
Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/
---
Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
---
You received this message because you
the post review script to create a unified
diff for subversion.
Regards,
Rob
On Thursday, August 16, 2012 11:09:50 AM UTC+1, Shaoyan Huang wrote:
I think the problem is caused by svn 1.7.x. It output some extra
information for svn diff and cause ReviewBoard to raise FileNotFound
exception
to a
sub directory inside it.
Regards,
Rob
On Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:51:57 AM UTC+1, Christian Hammond wrote:
Hi Rob,
Is the error output that you provided from the attempts before committing
the file, or after? I ask because it seems to be specifying an explicit
revision.
Can you also
.
Any advice on this would be much appreciated.
Review Board version = 1.6.3
RBTools Version = 0.4.1
TortoiseSvn Version = 1.7.7
Subversion = 1.7.5
Regards,
Rob
--
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
Happy user? Let us know at http
Doesn't look like this was ever answered. We've got the same situation that
we want to prevent self-review (we have another mechanism for checking in
without review).
On Thursday, January 5, 2012 6:39:50 AM UTC-8, Igor Berger wrote:
Agreed. But I want to make sure at least 1 other person
reviewed, it should also be able to filter out the Ship Its from the author
quite easily.
Christian
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Rob Fagen wrote:
Doesn't look like this was ever answered. We've got the same situation
that we want to prevent self-review (we have another mechanism
-packages/ReviewBoard-1.6rc1-py2.4.egg/reviewboard/reviews/templatetags/reviewtags.py,
line 397, in bug_url
return review_request.repository.bug_tracker %
bug_id
TypeError: not enough arguments for format string
Let me know if
I can provide any more info.
Regards,
Rob
--
Want to help the Review
updated the
url against the repository in question and I'm still getting the same
error when trying to view a newly created review with a bug number
against it.
Regards,
Rob
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:19:15 -0700,
Christian Hammond wrote:
Sorry, I spoke too soon. This is already
checked
upload new review using post-review with the
--bugs-closed option as well.
Thanks for the help
Rob
On Fri, 24
Jun 2011 01:58:24 -0700, Christian Hammond wrote:
I imagine the bug
tracker was set to Bugzilla, with that being the bugzilla server. What
should happen is we should then auto-append
Hi Rohan,
See
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard/browse_thread/thread/9f14cc242a9ef367
for the issues I had.
Regards,
Rob
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:53:08
-0700 (PDT), ROAAN wrote:
Did anybody face the similar issue in
integrating CVS into
ReviewBoard ?
Thanks,
Rohan
anything else.
Regards,
Rob
On
Wed, 11 May 2011 03:47:39 -0700 (PDT), Philipp Henkel wrote:
Rob,
The fix is committed. Could you please test with the latest version
of
reviewboard/scmtools/svn_post_tracker.py?
- Philipp
On
May 10, 8:58 pm, Philipp Henkel
wrote:
Hi Rob, Thanks, I'm
that this is a worth while package to start using. Lets
hope this functionality makes it into the main code soon.
Rob
On
Wed, 11 May 2011 23:38:03 +0100, Rob Coward wrote:
Hi Philipp,
I've pulled your latest code from git and updated my install. It no
longer errors, but just displays No pending
/reviewboard/reviews/forms.py, line
411, in create
raise e
KeyError: 'revprops'
The subversion repo is a
brand new repo I created for the task of reviewing your code, populated
initially with cvs2svn to import an existing cvs repository.
Any
thoughts ?
Thanks for your hard work.
Rob Coward
?
Looking forward to seeing this
functionality integrated into the main codebase.
Rob
On Thu, 7 Apr
2011 05:32:44 -0700 (PDT), Philipp Henkel wrote:
Hi,
In order
to simplify the creation of post-commit review requests I
created a
customized version of Review Board 1.5.
I integrated a new
svn.group.game.net:/app01/repository/cvs/ in the Mirror field to
allow post-review to find the repository when posting diffs.
Hope this
helps anyone else with the same issue.
Regards,
Rob
On Fri, 4 Mar
2011 12:30:25 -0800, Christian Hammond wrote:
Hi Rob,
What
OS/distro
setup between nodes, and one side-effect of
this is that autoincrementing id columns are not sequential . Does the
rb-site code make assumptions about the next allocated value in 'id'
columns ?
Thanks for your help,
Rob
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 21:26:17
-0800, Christian Hammond wrote:
Hi Rob
of the id field inserted rather than assuming it started
at '1'.
Regards,
Rob
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 10:37:59 +, Rob
Coward wrote:
Hi Christian,
Thank you for your reply. I have
tried this install on 2 seperate Centos servers, using the same MySQL
backend server, both with the same results
I struggled a bit to make it work too, but here's what I finally used.
I am running ReviewBoard on CentOS 5.2 under Apache/mod_python/Python
2.5.1/linux64. (The Python ldap module, linking to openldap libs I
believe, is responsible for the actual connection.)
LDAP server:
Finished upgrading to RB 1.5. When viewing a review, the diff
fragments show loading spinners that never end. Using Firebug, I see
the following error in my JavaScript console:
registerForUpdates is not defined
registerForUpdates(2010-11-12 01:42:08);
Where is this JavaScript routine
See also topic
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard/browse_thread/thread/af0e34298072d5af#
I have seen this problem with every version of ReviewBoard prior to
1.5. I am stuck at 1.0.4 at the moment.
What I did to fix this was modify all the calls in the diffiviewer
code below to use
Starting in ReviewBoard 1.5 (Python 2.5.1 linux64 compiled
mod_python.so) the changes to use Paramiko result in this exception
when posting a review changelist (from Perforce) via the commandline
post-review tool.
HTTP POSTing to http://sw-web3.altera.com/review/api/json/accounts/login/:
My company is thinking about using review Board, but doesn't have a
home to host it on. Does anyone know a good hosting provider for
Review Board?
-Rob
--
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
Happy user? Let us know at http
81 matches
Mail list logo
